Case law

O'Brien v. Lifestyle Transportation, Inc.

956 F. Supp. 2d 300 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 23, 2013

It has not been established in the instant case that O’Brien is not a covered employee. … Rydbom Express, Inc., 2009 WL 3152136 , at *9 (E.D.Pa., Sept. 30, 2009) (“Section 306(c) clearly states that the employee’s work need only ‘in whole or in part’ affect the safety of operation of vehicles weighing 10,000 pounds

Pagano v. Allard

218 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 12, 2002

A state court decision is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent “if that decision applies a rule that contradicts a rule clearly articulated by the Supreme Court or if the state court confronts a set of … Here, although the federal law regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the presumption of innocence has been clearly established, there is not a “rule clearly articulated by the Supreme Court” that is exactly on point, nor

Bulmer v. MidFirst Bank, FSA

59 F. Supp. 3d 271 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 14, 2014

See, e.g., In re Maxwell, 281 B.R. at 123 (citing more egregious eases and concluding that “just two” RES-PA violations does not establish a pattern or practice). … The QWR, the only letter sent to Defendant, neither clearly described an unfair or deceptive practice nor stated the injury suffered. .

United States Ex Rel. Nowak v. Medtronic, Inc.

806 F. Supp. 2d 310 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2011

At this point, Nowak alleges, Medtronic began to establish a pretext for terminating her. … Nowak’s original, individual action — the complaint that qualifies her as a relator in this action — clearly alleges that Medtronic’s rampant off-label promotion activities caused the government to pay claims for nonreimbursable

Kurtz v. Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health, Inc.

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 5, 2019

Nonetheless, if Defendant is found liable for Plaintiff's injuries, it qualifies for charitable immunity. II. BACKGROUND1 A. … Ct. 2009) (a union, which existed "primarily for the benefit of its members," did not qualify for charitable immunity).

Devol Pond Association v. Chris Capone

District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 8, 2024

Rhode Island Bd. of Bar Examiners, 910 F.3d 544, 553 (1st Cir. 2018) (recognizing it to be “well established that [Eleventh Amendment] immunity also applies to suits brought by a state’s own citizens” (citing Tennessee … Indeed, the Hadleys do not clearly articulate how any of these allegations could do so.

Winchester Capital Management Co. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

144 F.R.D. 170 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 15, 1992

Rather, he entered a consulting agreement with Winchester on March 25, 1988 which clearly established his status as an independent contractor vis-a-vis Winchester. … I find that Winchester has carried its burden of establishing its entitlement to assert the privilege as to discussions at which Mr.

Globe Newspaper Company v. Bork

370 F. Supp. 1135 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 12, 1974

Nor is it suggested that news gathering does not qualify for First Amendment protection-, without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated. … Thus it does not appear that the defendants will be able to meet the burden established in Nolan v.

Massachusetts Medical Society v. Dukakis

637 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 5, 1986

The term “adjudicative” fact is part of established usage. Cf. Fed.R.Evid. 201 (Notes of the Advisory Committee). … Also a part of established usage is the term “finding,” used to refer to a trial court’s decision of an adjudicative fact dispute.

Swack v. Credit Suisse First Boston

230 F.R.D. 250 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 14, 2005

whether they are professionals or amateurs”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Priest, 118 F.R.D. at 555 (noting that “[Sophistication does not make a plaintiff devoid of protection under the securities laws or immune … If the question is whether Swack’s incentives align with those of absent class members, the answer clearly is yes.

Andrews v. South Coast Legal Services, Inc.

582 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 27, 2008

Therefore, as alleged, the defendants qualify as debt collectors under the Massachusetts statute. … Since Andrews has alleged a violation of the FDCPA, she also has alleged sufficient facts to establish an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. See *90 Martin v.

Perry v. Bordley

379 F. Supp. 2d 109 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 18, 2005

Even if the court is wrong in its assessment that the right to conduct a frisk arises independently of the right to conduct a Terry stop, Bordley would have a strong argument for qualified immunity. … Assuming that the frisk violated a Fourth Amendment right of Perry's, the question remains whether the right not to be frisked in the context of a consensual encounter was (or is) clearly established. Saucier v.

Bennett v. City of Holyoke

230 F. Supp. 2d 207 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 7, 2002

Defendants’ arguments for absolute and qualified immunity are not persuasive. Decades of law have clearly established that a public employer may not discipline an employee for protected speech. … This qualified privilege may be overcome only by a showing of actual malice. See Zimmerman, 262 F.3d at 76 ; Gram, 429 N.E.2d at 24 .

Sisco v. DLA Piper LLP

833 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 15, 2011

Sisco clearly did not welcome the treatment to which she was allegedly subjected. … Claim against DLA Piper The complaint clearly states that Sisco is African-American, and that de *149 spite excellent job performance she was demoted and then fired.

Sylvander v. New England Home for Little Wanderers

444 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 1978

The couple had another adopted child and was clearly suitable in terms of stability, affluence, education and health. … Those cases establish that alleged deprivation of parental rights can be reviewed in a state habeas corpus proceeding.

Strout v. United Shoe Machinery Co.

195 F. 313 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 1912

that in matters of pleading inferences from equivocal and uncertain allegations cannot he followed, and that, where the question relates to jurisdiction, argumentative inferences are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction … White-house qualified as trustee by giving the bond required. “On July 19, 1911, Mr.

Nanje v. Chavez

134 F. Supp. 3d 544 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2015

Both charges of Count 1 and Count 3 occurred the same day on March 15, 2005, you pleaded guilty to both concurrently, and the plea agreement clearly shows that the $12,000 restitution was assessed under both counts. … Among the requirements an applicant must show in order to qualify for naturalization is that he or she “has been and still is a person of good moral charae-ter[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1427 (a).

Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Walsh

762 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2010

As one means to avoid Noerr-Pennington immunity, defendants rely on the sham litigation exception. … Accordingly, it is not necessary to address the fraud exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity. 22 .

Borowiec v. Local No. 1570 of the International Brotherhood of Boiler-Makers

626 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 16, 1986

Benjamin Miller told the members that the collective bargaining agreement “clearly” provided for endtailing in the event of a plant closing. … They contend that the proposal was widely discussed, that the ballot was clearly explained to the members before the vote, and that the notice concerning the special meeting and the vote was adequate.

Callagy v. Town of Aquinnah

880 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 27, 2012

The selectmen of the town do not have a uniform view as to who qualifies as a seasonal resident. (Docket Entry # 24, ¶ 22; *250 Docket Entry # 32, ¶ 22). … law and (2) this conduct deprived appellants of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”